"A Subtractive Instrument" - Paul Reed Smith

[Chordite]

What PRS is not saying is that there are several different types of PVC with different properties. So, no, you can't carve durable nut out of a piece of pvc drainpipe.

 

http://www.vinidex.com.au/technical/material-properties/pvc-properties/

[soundcreation]

I stand corrected. A black "imitation bone" nut made of PVC. Who woulda thunk it? However, I stand by my "straw man" comment. Nobody is going to compare a PRS to an Epiphone, and guitars in PRS' league don't have PVC nuts.

 

But he's not trying to say that. He's simply saying that when cheaper materials are used it magnifies the "subractive" properties of a guitar. So if you want a guitar that is less subtractive then you need to use the parts that don't take away. He didn't make a straw man argument.

[DeepEnd]

. . . He's simply saying that when cheaper materials are used it magnifies the "subractive" properties of a guitar. . . . He didn't make a straw man argument.

I would hope we all know cheap guitars are made with cheap materials: laminated wood; cheap, soft nuts; heavy bracing; junky tuners; cheap pickups; etc. I don't need him to tell me better guitars sound better, are built better, and use better materials. But anyone who might be in the market for a PRS is going to be looking at guitars in their price range and those guitars don't use cheap, "subtractive" materials. That's where the "straw man" comes in.

[Chordite]

I think there is a false correlation going on here.

There are plenty of extremely hard materials that are cheap. Let's try glass or steel for instance, much harder than even bone.

I call snake oil on the expensive nut materials issue.

[Chordite]

 

Welcome to TED.

 

TED was good in the very early days but it has become a vehicle for PC whining these days or else a "name" seems to be invited then they have to think of the talk as an afterthought.

It's like those greatest hits albums from one hit wonders.

[soundcreation]

I would hope we all know cheap guitars are made with cheap materials: laminated wood; cheap, soft nuts; heavy bracing; junky tuners; cheap pickups; etc. I don't need him to tell me better guitars sound better, are built better, and use better materials. But anyone who might be in the market for a PRS is going to be looking at guitars in their price range and those guitars don't use cheap, "subtractive" materials. That's where the "straw man" comes in.

 

But they do. At least in my opinion anyway. I don't care how often guys like PRS and Suhr try to tell me their "ultra thin poly" finishes are just as good as a thin nitro finish. I don't think they are. To me...as much as they claim otherwise.....a poly finish is a sign of taking a short cut because of expense. Either in time cause poly is faster to do, or because they don't want to pay for doing it cleanly. ie. Nitro is not environmentally friendly...so requires more regulations to use.

 

At the high end there are still differences in production. PRS after all is a giant factory produced guitar. Just like Gibson. I'd bet they aren't selecting woods for best tonal quality until you get up to the very high end of what they produce. The 4 or 5 K guitars for example.

 

So why would I buy one of their guitars when I could go to someone smaller who does select wood and has better finishes etc....for less money?

 

For me personally I've never cared about a company's name. It has no appeal to me at all. I just want quality.